RAM LABHAYA, J.: This reference from the District Magistrate, Kamrup, arises out of an order of conviction under Section 403-414, I.P.C., passed against the petitioner by a First Class Magistrate at Gauhati. The petitioner was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50/-. He assailed the validity of his conviction by a revision petition. (2) The learned District Magistrate, who heard the revision petition, has referred this case to this Court under Section 438, Criminal P.C., with the recommendation that the conviction and the sentence passed on the peti­tioner be quashed. (3) The facts leading to the conviction are that a bull was dedicated by one Parasuram Kalita for the benefit of the public about 5 years before the occurrence in a public gather­ing in the village 'Namghar.' The bull was found missing and the villagers started search­ing for it. It was found in the house of one Johar Seikh. He had castrated the bull and was using it for ploughing purposes. Johar Seikh alleged that he got the bull from Anantaram Koch, the petitioner. Sibaram Mahanta, the Dewri of Hanapara Namghar, lodged a report at the Police Station. A case under Section 411/414/295, I.P.C., was registered against both Anantaram Koch and Johar Seikh. In the course of the investigation, it was found that Johar Seikh had purchased the bull from Anan­taram as alleged by him. He could produce a receipt evidencing the transaction. Anantaram alone was, therefore, prosecuted under Section 414, I.P.C. (4) According to the Ejahar, the bull was de­dicated to the God 'Gopal' of Hanapara temple in the presence of Brahmins and the people of the village. The bull was under the care of the Mahanta of the temple, who is the com­plainant in the case though it was not kept in any cowshed and was allowed to wander about freely. The evidence at the trial was to the effect that the bull was dedicated to the Idol in the Namghar for the benefit of the public. It was looked after by the Mahanta and the people of the village for whose benefit it was dedicated. The trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the bull was dedicated for the benefit of the villagers of Hanapara. It was looked after by the Mahanta and the people of the village for whose benefit it was dedicated. The trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the bull was dedicated for the benefit of the villagers of Hanapara. (5) Without differing from the finding arrived at by the trial Magistrate, the learned District Magistrate relying on 'ROMESH CHUNDER v. HIRU MONDAL', 17 Cal 852, found that a bull set at large in accordance with Hindu religious usage is not the property of anyone and cannot be the subject of ownership of any person. According to him, it followed that such a bull could not be the subject-matter of criminal misappropriation or of an offence under Section 414, I.P.C. He further found that the allegation that the bull had been sold by the petitioner by receipt Exhibit 7 could not be regarded as proved as attesting witnesses of this receipt who, according to him, were avail­able had not been produced. In his opinion the conviction based on other evidence would be bad in law. On these grounds he submitted the case with the recommendation that the conviction be quashed. (6) The first ground in support of the refer­ence raises an important question. In 'ROMESH CHUNDER v. HIRU MONDAL', 17 Cal 852, the facts found were that at the cere­mony of the Adya Sradha of the mother of Raja Jogendra Nath Rai, a bull was dedicated and set at large after being branded on the hind part. The bull was used by the villagers for breeding purposes and there was some evi­dence that it was not so used without permis­sion having been obtained from the Rajbari who looked after it under the supervision of the Rajbari Sirdar. It was found that the bull was not moveable property within the meaning of Sections 378 and 403 or 'property' within the meaning of Section 425 of the Penal Code and could not, therefore, be the subject of theft, criminal misappropriation or mischief. (7) The learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court who heard this case distinguished an earlier Madras case reported in 'QUEEN EMPRESS v. NALLA', 11 Mad 145. (7) The learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court who heard this case distinguished an earlier Madras case reported in 'QUEEN EMPRESS v. NALLA', 11 Mad 145. In that case it was held that a bull dedicated to an idol and allowed to roam at large is not 'ferae bestiae' & therefore 'res nullius.' The learned Judges (Muttusami Ayyar and Brandt, JJ.), were of the opinion that: "if on the evidence it appeared that the animal was turned loose after dedication to the temple and that it was actually or inferentially accepted as so dedicated on behalf of the temple, then, though the animal were allowed to be at large, free from all control it would, prima facie, be the property of the temple." The learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court did not differ from this view. They did not see anything in this judgment which questioned the correctness of the law laid down by the learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court in 'QUEEN EMPRESS v. BHANDHU', 8 All 51, on which they relied. (8) It is thus apparent that the Calcutta case 'ROMESH CHUNDER v. HIRU MONDAL', 17 Cal 852 and the Madras case 'QUEEN EMPRESS v. NALLA', 11 Mad 145 are not mutually exclusive. The ques­tion is whether the facts of the present case attract the application of the one or the other. [The evidence in the case before us shows that dedication was for a public purpose and in the name of the idol of the village temple. The Mahanta of the temple was looking after the bull with the help of the villagers. On these facts we see no justification for holding that the bull was 'ferae bestiae' & therefore 'res nullius.' The property in the bull remained, after the dedication, in the temple for the benefit of the villagers. It was, therefore, property which could form the subject-matter of an offence 'under Section 414, I.P.C. (9) The second ground in support of the re­ference is that the alleged sale of the bull by the petitioner to P. W. 6 Johar Seikh, has not been proved. There is surely evidence on the record on which this finding could have been based. It was open to the learned Magistrate to rely on the statements of P.Ws. 6 and 7. There is surely evidence on the record on which this finding could have been based. It was open to the learned Magistrate to rely on the statements of P.Ws. 6 and 7. The learned District Magistrate does not suggest that the alleged transaction of sale could not be proved in law except by the statements of the attesting witnesses. We have gone through the statements of the witnesses and we do not think that the view taken by the learned Magis­trate is wrong or unsustainable. The recom­mendation is, therefore, not accepted and the petition of revision is dismissed. (10) THADANI, C. J.: I agree. Revision dismissed.